Thanks for making us aware of this. We are working to make adjustments back here at Spiceworks HQ. It appears that one our targeting vectors was misapplied and we'll make sure this gets resolved quickly.

- Reg Herde

Okay, this now been fixed. Thanks again for the heads up and let us know if you see anything else that raises concern.

Thanks for making us aware of this. We are working to make adjustments back here at Spiceworks HQ. It appears that one our targeting vectors was misapplied and we'll make sure this gets resolved quickly.

- Reg Herde

Okay, this now been fixed. Thanks again for the heads up and let us know if you see anything else that raises concern.

i think this is sponsored by symantec it only puts this up when the plugin detects out of date definitions for the av it can scan, the plugin gets its info from windows security centre so if this is not running or hasn't got it beans in a row then it will pass dirty data

that said it is blatant advertising and thats what keeps spiceworks free, we are professional, semi professional or a least have an higher than average understanding of computers (had to put last one in to cover me) on here and should be able to dismiss this for what it is. should any of us on here feel the need to go out and buy av because of what this says, then they should really be questioning if they are in the right profession.

It was an ad that linked to Symantec. We do not run any symantec products, therefore it could not be scanning any of its definitions. As a matter of fact, I'm suspect it was just blindly displaying that text regardless of whats actually installed on our computers.

I'm fully aware of Spiceworks' business model and what purpose ads serve.
Since this was the 1st time I used Spiceworks v5, i was getting familiar with the new interface and it took me a few moments to realize that text was an ad and not an actual status message from Spiceworks.

If like you say competence level of users on this site is generally higher, Symantec shouldn't be wasting its advertising efforts with such misleading and infective messages, using scare tactics analogous to fake-antivirus products.

Hey Maxim - welcome to SpiceWorks - a lot of us are hard core defenders of SpiceWorks and very committed to the product and helping support other users. As you can see from your comments, the issue was taken care of pretty darn quick - that's how they roll! Hope you like the product and I think you will find that a lot of your issues/questions will get answered by some pretty smart people on this forum - some you have already met!

Just to clarify, the posting within your Security Center was based on misdirected targeting. We can certainly debate the language of the message but the fault was ours in that it was intended to scan Symantec AV installations for the latest and greatest. In that capacity, I do believe it would be apt. Our apologies again. Thanks.

Just to clarify, the posting within your Security Center was based on misdirected targeting. We can certainly debate the language of the message but the fault was ours in that it was intended to scan Symantec AV installations for the latest and greatest. In that capacity, I do believe it would be apt. Our apologies again. Thanks.

hrm. now does it mean that you guys are getting list of our antivirus apps and their versions installed? in order for you to target a specific av and/or specific version, that info is being transmitted to you?

Dude that's a FAR cry from scareware malware. It may be inaccurate but that does NOT make it a malicious attack.

What antivirus product are you using?

It does, in fact, make it a malicious attack. What this is called is "social enginering." A malware vendor, apparently Symantec in this case, is attempting to mislead and confuse someone into believing something that is not true in order to persuade them to do something bad for them (like installing a Symantec product.) People have argued with me that Symantec is not malware but I think that this pretty much seals up that argument.

It is definitely using scare tactics to get someone to behave differently than they normally would. This is no different than those web pop ups that come up and tell you that you have a virus when you don't. And we consider those "AV scanners" to be malware. How is this different?

Out of curiosity, where does the link take you? If it takes you to a malicious ad, then yeah. I'd have to agree. If it takes you to a vendor, then it's just a tricky, if not sleazy advertisement.

What's the difference between a malicious ad and a vendor? How do you differentiate? If it is attempting to social engineer you to get you to hand over money based on fear, I'd call any vendor on the other end of that to be one putting up a malicious ad. They created fear and got your money. That's not really different than using a malicious trojan to get your credit card number and stealing $100 from your bank account.

i think this is sponsored by symantec it only puts this up when the plugin detects out of date definitions for the av it can scan, the plugin gets its info from windows security centre so if this is not running or hasn't got it beans in a row then it will pass dirty data

that said it is blatant advertising and thats what keeps spiceworks free, we are professional, semi professional or a least have an higher than average understanding of computers (had to put last one in to cover me) on here and should be able to dismiss this for what it is. should any of us on here feel the need to go out and buy av because of what this says, then they should really be questioning if they are in the right profession.

peter

It should state "THIS IS AN AD" and be absolutely clear that it is not part of the console but just an ad space. People are used to disclaimers on ads like this in magazines (This is a paid suplement) but having it like this makes it transparent with your security scanning app which makes it very dangerous.

i think this is sponsored by symantec it only puts this up when the plugin detects out of date definitions for the av it can scan, the plugin gets its info from windows security centre so if this is not running or hasn't got it beans in a row then it will pass dirty data

that said it is blatant advertising and thats what keeps spiceworks free, we are professional, semi professional or a least have an higher than average understanding of computers (had to put last one in to cover me) on here and should be able to dismiss this for what it is. should any of us on here feel the need to go out and buy av because of what this says, then they should really be questioning if they are in the right profession.

peter

It should state "THIS IS AN AD" and be absolutely clear that it is not part of the console but just an ad space. People are used to disclaimers on ads like this in magazines (This is a paid suplement) but having it like this makes it transparent with your security scanning app which makes it very dangerous.

Now that it is gone I can't verify (but could use the "ad" at the bottom of my Excange Health widget), and it is segregated by a bar. Knowing the method Spiceworks uses ads and it's sponsors, one should be aware that these plugs will be in throughout the application.

Back to my original reply, I see some confusion, but some rewording would be a good solution (rackspace's is a question).

I think it's pretty irresponsible to call it a malicious attack, especially when it's part of the Spiceworks application when you know more than most how the program works.

I guess my definition of malware (malicious software) and scareware (scare software) differs from yours. If you want to call this a social engineering attempt, then fine. But it's not malware or scareware by my book. That would mean malicious software would be loaded w/o consent. This is not to say it wasn't misleading or inappropriate advertising. I'm not trying to be an apologist; I'm also not a fan of Symantec products (bloatware). But I cleanup several malware infections a week so until I see a screenshot of an actual rogue loaded from clicking the link, I'm not going along with the argument that it's malware or scareware.

i think this is sponsored by symantec it only puts this up when the plugin detects out of date definitions for the av it can scan, the plugin gets its info from windows security centre so if this is not running or hasn't got it beans in a row then it will pass dirty data

that said it is blatant advertising and thats what keeps spiceworks free, we are professional, semi professional or a least have an higher than average understanding of computers (had to put last one in to cover me) on here and should be able to dismiss this for what it is. should any of us on here feel the need to go out and buy av because of what this says, then they should really be questioning if they are in the right profession.

peter

It should state "THIS IS AN AD" and be absolutely clear that it is not part of the console but just an ad space. People are used to disclaimers on ads like this in magazines (This is a paid suplement) but having it like this makes it transparent with your security scanning app which makes it very dangerous.

Now that it is gone I can't verify (but could use the "ad" at the bottom of my Excange Health widget), and it is segregated by a bar. Knowing the method Spiceworks uses ads and it's sponsors, one should be aware that these plugs will be in throughout the application.

Back to my original reply, I see some confusion, but some rewording would be a good solution (rackspace's is a question).

I think it's pretty irresponsible to call it a malicious attack, especially when it's part of the Spiceworks application when you know more than most how the program works.

Especially for new users, you can't just expect people to know what areas are ads and what areas are part of their monitoring - especially when ads are allowed to act like part of the app. That's exactly what a malicious ad is. You can argue that an intelligent person would always be able to tell when they are being socially engineered. But that doesn't make it acceptable to try to do so and it is not legal.

I was not aware that the ads were "a part of the application" but thought that they were passed through from an ad server (internal, but outside of the app) so I would not consider it malicious on SpiceWorks part from the way that I thought that the app worked but malicious on the part of a vendor with whom my experiences have shown that this is the type of tactics they would use without causing any surprises to their userbase.

Regardless, an ad that's purpose is to mislead is wrong no matter how effective it turns out to be or how able to know that they are being scammed the audience is intended to me. It is that the intent is malicious that makes it malicious, not the success rate.

I guess my definition of malware (malicious software) and scareware (scare software) differs from yours. If you want to call this a social engineering attempt, then fine. But it's not malware or scareware by my book. That would mean malicious software would be loaded w/o consent. This is not to say it wasn't misleading or inappropriate advertising. I'm not trying to be an apologist; I'm also not a fan of Symantec products (bloatware). But I cleanup several malware infections a week so until I see a screenshot of an actual rogue loaded from clicking the link, I'm not going along with the argument that it's malware or scareware.

Malware and scareware carry no suggestion of "without consent." Trojans, by definition, are installed by tricking people, not by getting installed without consent.

That you must give them money before installing the app doesn't do anything to protect it from malware or scareware status. To be scareware you only need to have installed it because you were threatened, engineering or scared into doing so (presumably when the reason for that was not true.) It doesn't imply that the ad itself is what installed the app. Almost nothing would be malware by that definition.

Viruses and worms come without consent. But the biggest issues in the malware field are trojans which are loaded with consent and why they are so dangerous and they have full user-level privileges.

As an FYI, in a courtroom, extortion is judged by the threat, not the follow through. You do not have to actually beat up a shop owner to extort them, just intimidate them so that they fear that you will if they don't pay protection money.